Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
721

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< And in spite of their objections they continue to benefit from the various fields of science that were born from Darwin’s theory.[/quote]And in spite of your objections, you and the rest of the universe continue to exist because the creator God sustains that existence every second. ;D (Hebrews 1:3)

[quote]ephrem wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]ephrem wrote:I find it astonishing that reasonably intelligent people entertain the notion of god creating the heavens and earth in its current state a mere 6000 years ago as being equal to what we know about the universe and our existence based on scientific research. Flabbergasted is the appropriate word here, I guess.[/quote]I do NOT find it astonishing or flabbergasting that most people don’t, when the Word of almighty God says they won’t.[/quote]Then again, I was talking about reasonably intelligent people.[/quote]You talked mean to me again Ephrem =[ That’s not very neighborly after all we’ve been through together. Have I ever demeaned your or anybody else’s intelligence around here? You were doin so good far a while there too.

722

[quote]cryogen wrote:

chiropractic nonsense[/quote]

Agree minus this.

Chiro is legit. Especially Active Release Technique.

723

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:

chiropractic nonsense[/quote]

Agree minus this.

Chiro is legit. Especially Active Release Technique. [/quote]

I guess everyone believes in some magical things.

724

[quote]cryogen wrote:<<< Oh, and my PhD in chemistry allows me to be pretty definitive that there is no proof of creationism contained within the subject matter.[/quote]OH THANK YOOOOO MR JONES!!! LOL!! These guys are my favorite.

725

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]cryogen wrote:

chiropractic nonsense[/quote]

Agree minus this.

Chiro is legit. Especially Active Release Technique. [/quote]

I guess everyone believes in some magical things.[/quote]

Really? Even many contributors to this site highly advocate Active Release Technique - Charles Poliquin for instance.

Bodybuilders/weightlifters use it quite frequently. There is nothing mystical about it.

726

Here’s a study done on ART

http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/2008/ART.htm

“While research on Active Release Techniques is somewhat limited, with most studies being very small in scale relative to studies on more traditional treatments, the results supporting the efficacy of ART have been significant enough to support the treatment as a viable alternative method for treating soft-tissue injuries and pain. Coupled with the correct rehabilitation program, ART has the potential to be just as effective as, if not more so than, any conventional treatment regimen.”

It’s done wonders for my elbows and shoulders personally.

727

I think we can all agree that Biologists are the worst scientists. Lets just all agree to leave it at that.

728

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here’s a study done on ART

http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/2008/ART.htm

“While research on Active Release Techniques is somewhat limited, with most studies being very small in scale relative to studies on more traditional treatments, the results supporting the efficacy of ART have been significant enough to support the treatment as a viable alternative method for treating soft-tissue injuries and pain. Coupled with the correct rehabilitation program, ART has the potential to be just as effective as, if not more so than, any conventional treatment regimen.”

It’s done wonders for my elbows and shoulders personally.[/quote]

Yah thats a very strongly worded endorsement. So you got your one study that pretty much is going to go against the way that most physical therapists and doctors feel about chiros…and instead of going with the accepted authority in this field the medical community you are going with the iconoclast chiros. It actually does kinda illustrate YEC versus abiogenesis nicely.

729

There aren’t really many studies done on ART, I posted what is available. Secondly, most doctors are terrible with understanding weightlifting type injuries, you only have to read this forum to know that.

Please address why so many bodybuilders, weightlifters and contributors to this very site recommend Active Release Technique.

Christian Thib:

Charles Poliquin

Eric Cressey

730

I haven’t really looked at Chiropractors as a whole but I can attest to the effectiveness of one method they use -ART

It’s merely a method to break up built up scar tissue from weightlifting.

731

Why no start a thread on Chiro in GAL?

732

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

I believe some of those have been refuted on these forums in past threads.

-I have read counter-arguments for the helium issue having to do with heat, ionization, leaking.

  • I have read convincing arguments against points 10 and 11.

[/quote]

Tell us what they are otherwise your post is completely worthless.

Those would be counterarguments not refutations. I think there is a difference and scientists of some renown of both sides weigh in.
[/quote]

Helium: RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons

"A fair amount of helium is lost from the earth’s atmosphere by simply being heated up in the elevated temperature of the exosphere (Dalrymple, 1984, p.112). The exosphere is the outermost layer of our atmosphere, beginning after the ionosphere at about 300 miles above the earth. When a lightweight helium atom is heated up, especially Helium-3, which is even lighter than Helium-4, it can easily pick up enough speed to escape Earth’s gravity altogether and head off into outer space. Heating gas is a little like swatting rubber balls with a paddle; the lighter balls travel a lot faster after being swatted. In this manner about half of the Helium-3 produced is lost to outer space. The amount of the heavier Helium-4 lost by this method appears to be far short of the amount produced. Hence, the point of Morris’ argument which is based on calculations by Cook. However, there are other mechanisms of helium escape which Morris and Cook have overlooked. Creationist Larry Vardiman (ICR Impact series, No.143, May 1985) at least recognizes some of these other factors. However, he has not fully addressed the matter, let alone proven that the earth is young.

The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth's magnetic field. Banks and Holzer [1969] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 ±1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3 lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern [1972] estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss."
733

You also know that many of the top IFBB guys see Chiro’s regularly right?

734

Another by Michael Ranfone

735

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

Creationism is also a hypothesis. When tested the hypothesis passes as it is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe.[/quote]

Excuse me? Creationism 100% does not pass it’s hypothesis when examined under the scientific method. I must have read your post wrong but to me I read that creationism has been proven by science which is obviously not true.
[/quote]

You have misread the post. I didn’t say that creationism is proven by science because your definition of science excludes creation (nice and circular!)

What I actually said was that creationism is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe. In that way the hypothesis is tested and passes.

I’ll give you an example, the fossil record. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, the creation model predicts that we will find animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed.

What do we observe? Animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed! Puncuated equilibrium was postulated in order to avoid this inconvenient fact.

It is actually worse than that. Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted. In Origin of Species he wrote:

Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

Even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.

More recently, Stephen Jay Gould said:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.

So which model is consistent with the observations? (Hint, its not the ToE.)[/quote]

“What I actually said was that creationism is able to explain the natural phenomena that we observe. In that way the hypothesis is tested and passes.”

If “tested and passes” isn’t referring to science then what are you talking about?

“the creation model predicts that we will find animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed.”

Define “fully formed.” I don’t think you understand evolution…Every living thing is a transitional form.

And the ‘Lack of Transitional Forms’ Argument can be solved by using Google. Here are some sites that may help you understand that there are indeed several transitional fossils. And by the way, we are a transitional form too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...itional_fossils

And again I’d love to hear creations definition of “fully formed”, so please explain what a fully formed animal is defined as in the creation model.

736

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?

737

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

…Atheist websites are not biased…

[/quote]
[/quote]

LOL!!! LOL! LOL! That is what sheeple looks like in real life. “Hey these people with an agnda don’t have an agenda!” WOW!

I have seen many of these sites. The bias is almost embarrassingly bad.

Feel free to bring up any point from any atheist website, and I will gleefully destroy it with one arm tied behind my back, one eye closed, drunk and stoned. Some of those arguments are so bad I actually laughed out loud.
Atheist websites aren’t biased…Yeah, the holocaust never happened and the moon landings were staged too.

738

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]

Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact! :slight_smile:

739

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

Who else would determine the rules of science if not the people best trained and qualified to do so?
[/quote]
Oh? The scientific method isn’t determined, it was discovered as a method by which to measure things. It observes correlation and assumes causation.

OH WOW! First of all the ‘argumentum ad populum’ fallacy your playing is totally irrelevant. Agreement doesn’t determine truth. Everybody agreed at some point the Earth was flat, they were wrong.
Science doesn’t “determine reality” it measures events, that’s all. If you don’t understand what science is and what it actually does, it’s of little use to you for the purpose of discussion.

740

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< Every living thing is a transitional form. >>>[/quote]Are you sure?
[/quote]

Yup. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis, it’s a fact! :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Evolution is a theory, look it up.

I believe evolution to be a good theory, and strong theory, but it’s just a theory and nothing more.